People rightly want to get get paid for their work, says Liz Kendall, in apparent change of tack to predecessor<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Robert Booth UK technology editor<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The technology secretary, Liz Kendall, has indicated she is sympathetic to artists\u2019 demands not to have their copyrighted works scraped by AI companies without payment and said she wanted to \u201creset\u201d the debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In remarks that suggest a change in approach from her predecessor, Peter Kyle, who had hoped to require artists to actively opt out of having their work ingested by generative AI systems, she said \u201cpeople rightly want to get paid for the work that they do\u201d and \u201cwe have to find a way that both sectors can grow and thrive in future\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The government has been consulting on a new intellectual property framework for AI which, in the case of the most common large language models (LLMs), requires vast amounts of training data to work effectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The issue has sparked impassioned protests from some of Britain\u2019s most famous artists. This month Paul McCartney released a silent two-minute 45 second track of an empty studio on an album protesting against copyright grabs by AI firms as part of a campaign also backed by Kate Bush, Sam Fender, the Pet Shop Boys and Hans Zimmer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Elton John, meanwhile, called the UK government \u201cabsolute losers\u201d over proposals to let tech firms use copyrighted works without permission and has called Kyle \u201ca bit of a moron\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kendall, who replaced Kyle in September, said that she and the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, \u201care right now, having a reset on this discussion. We are talking to the creative sector and AI sector together.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Campaigners for the rights of artists, musicians and writers not to have their copyrighted works used as training data for large AI models, had voiced fears when Kendall appointed a special adviser in September who had previously said \u201cwhether or not you philosophically believe the big AI firms should compensate content creators, they in practice will never legally have to\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But Kendall said: \u201cViews before you come to work for the government are not the views of the government. We\u2019re going to find a deal that helps us move forward together.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
She also said she recognised that many parts of the creative sector want transparency about whether their work has been used to train AI systems, which would be a key part of enabling them to be paid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After a $1.5bn (\u00a31.15bn) legal settlement by Anthropic, one of the world\u2019s biggest AI companies, a searchable database of about 500,000 books used to train its models was released last month so authors could find out if their work had been infected and claim payment of about $3,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Beeban Kidron, a film director and crossbench peer who has battled in parliament to protect creatives\u2019 rights, welcomed Kendall \u201cmaking clear that she has recognised the need for creators to protect their property and livelihood\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But Lady Kidron said the government had \u201clost the trust of the entire creative community and the public, who overwhelmingly support the creative industry\u2019s need to receive a fair day\u2019s pay for their work\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An initial report on the government\u2019s plans is expected before the end of the year, followed by a more substantial report by March 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kidron called for the government to act now by no longer signing public sector deals with AI companies in disputes with copyright-holders, requiring AI companies to be transparent about what works they have trained their systems on and \u201cthey can make a commitment to respect copyright\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Kendall said: \u201cI understand why \u2026 many creatives are urging us to act immediately because so much has happened already.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBut we\u2019ve got to get this right \u2026 there\u2019s a lot of detail to work out here, but I believe it is possible to find a way forward that delivers for both because we don\u2019t want to have to choose.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An incredible self-own<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 1936, John Scott, son of the late Guardian owner and legendary editor CP Scott, did something unheard of for a media heir: he gave up his stake for the greater good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After inheriting the newspaper, Scott renounced all financial benefit \u2013 bar his salary \u2013 in the Guardian (worth \u00a31m at the time and around \u00a362m today) and passed ownership over to the newly formed Scott Trust. The Trust would evolve to have one key mission: to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That means the Guardian can\u2019t be bought. Not by private equity, not by a conglomerate, and definitely not by a billionaire looking for a political mouthpiece.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our independence means we can say what we want, report on who we want, challenge who we want, and stand up at a time when others are sitting down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Information take from: The Guardian<\/p>\n\n\n\n